actually there's a case of problems that involve natural evolution, survivorship over time and distributed actors. It can be argued this is also possible if you

actually there's a case of problems that involve natural evolution, survivorship over time and distributed actors. It can be argued this is also possible if you have the will and the money, but it practically never happens (arguably a minority of vc money maybe?) that people with will and money give it away to a large number of distributed decision makers over a time period to produce a single specific goal. It might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but actually urban design and working/living environment is exactly hypothesised to be one of those cases. It's why some people argue successful downturn areas and urban environments with walkability and diversity of use/design/ spectacle (so not most US cities), because they have evolved that way from lots of little distributed inconsistent designs, but with individual members tested, repurposed and surviving due to evolution over time. When a big developer or mega Corp develops or designs, you don't get natural evolution and diversity of design over time, you get mass sameness and waterfall design. It's why you get planned community aesthetics and corporate brand + policy rather than what organically works. The best of them might be bright and shiny (see Apple office/campus), but they still have the overarching ethos of singular design and absolute central/corporate control. Some people like that environment, personally I don't like working in it (don't get me wrong, i'd rather work in a good one rather than a bad one though). In practice they don't get it perfect. I imagine a lot of people could list problems with the Apple campus in practice, and I'd be good money this isn't going to be the Apple campus...